Post sayings or stories from Buddhist traditions which you find interesting, inspiring or useful. (Your own stories are welcome on DW, but in the Creative Writing or Personal Experience forums rather than here.)

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

What you seem to be looking for is a quote by CTR along the lines of "I use womanizing and drinking as Dharma methods..."

Lol, I'm only looking for you to support your claims.

Perhaps you are accustom to people accepting things on authority, or worse, the mere appearance of authority, so you don't even bother to try.

Of course, you will not find such a quote.

Are you assuming? Nothing surprises me in realms of belief and denial.

But you can certainly find many statements by him which indicate that like his teacher, Khenpo Gangshar, he was interested in pushing his students beyond their limitations. For example, we know that Khenpo Gangshar actively encouraged monks and nuns to leave retreat, have sex, and so on.

I'm sure that having sex is beyond some peoples limitations, uh... but not most.

Malcolm wrote:He [Chogyam Trungpa] was a realized person. He cannot be judged on the same standard as everyone else.

A realized alcoholic? Rewinding the tape a bit, is there a consensus that an alcoholic can be a realized person? or rather, is there a consensus on what a "realized person" means?

Alocholic per se I don't know about, that is a modern concept and delineation..however Malcolm answered your question partially just a few posts back:

Malcolm wrote:Then of course there is Drugpa Kunley, Do Khyentse, etc., many Tibetan masters that would hardly externally match your standards of moral conduct for that matter Virupa, Tilopa, Padmasambhava and so on also wouldn't.

So yeah, obviously unconventional behavior from realized beings is not really a controversial notion in Vajrayana, if you don't like or agree with that, that's ok. However, I do suggest you find a way to communicate something a bit more substantial than the "Trungpa couldn't have been realized because of X" that this forum has seen 100 times or so, just in the time i've been here. If it goes in that direction, the thread won't be around long.

Well I happen to think he can. And in fact there should a higher standard of judgment if he claimed to be realised.

Sure, if you wanna see Hinayana rules of external conduct as the only possible expression of Buddhist ethics, IMO a kind of myopic view.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

You are not following Mr. Dangerous. Alcoholism is not necessarily a moral issue. It is classified as a disease.

The question is not about morality but consensus. Is there a consensus among Buddhist practitioners that a realized person may be an alcoholic? I will venture to guess that there is not. How about you?

Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.

The four means of converting beings to the Dharma are generosity (which itself as four aspects: giving material gifts, conferring fearlessness, loving kindness and teaching Dharma), pleasant speech, conduct and setting an example.

You are not following Mr. Dangerous. Alcoholism is not necessarily a moral issue. It is classified as a disease.

The question is not about morality but consensus. Is there a consensus among Buddhist practitioners that a realized person may be an alcoholic? I will venture to guess that there is not. How about you?

No, it's not a question that gets asked often. Most follow the notions of morality in the Hinayana and basic Mahayana teachings, but again - in Vajrayana (which is the context this Trungpa story operates in, IMO) outlandish behavior can be seen as a display of enlightened activity in some cases. No need for a consensus though, any more than there is a need on the other side (which there always seems to be) to somehow "disprove" Trungpa as a worthwhile teacher.

I've heard some teachers say things like "alcohol didn't effect the brilliance of his mind, but it killed his body" and similar..there's a spectrum of opinion. Most Tibetan teachers i've heard or read talk about him though, don't doubt he was highly realized - regardless of their opinions on the alcohol use.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

Motova wrote:Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.

If you want to single out awful behavior of religious figures (Buddhist or otherwise) as evidence of guilt by association of their teachers, that's quite a list of people, every religion has scandals similar to this, all the time, sad as that is. I can't answer the question one way or another on why someone of a high level of realization would do that, but no one said he had the siddhi of clairvoyance, and the stories regarding those incidents are pretty murky..in the end IME people's opinions on them simply go where they started from in the first place.

To me Trungpa's teachings are brilliant enough (and I read many of them prior to the internet, so looking up the controversy was basically impossible) that I already had confidence he had "it" in some sense. YMMV.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

Perhaps you’re not Johnny Dangerous. You are the one who brought the moral dimension into it, and the Hinayana strawman. The way I see it, and it seems boda too, is craving/clinging is not a moral dimension, but more about the human condition. However, it is not the condition or domain of realised beings. As far as I’m aware there is no clinging for a realised being. Can someone who is an alcoholic (a gross manifestation of clinging/craving) therefore be realised?

Motova wrote:Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.

If you want to single out awful behavior of religious figures (Buddhist or otherwise) as evidence of guilt by association of their teachers, that's quite a list of people, every religion has scandals similar to this, all the time, sad as that is. I can't answer the question one way or another on why someone of a high level of realization would do that, but no one said he had the siddhi of clairvoyance, and the stories regarding those incidents are pretty murky..in the end IME people's opinions on them simply go where they started from in the first place.

To me Trungpa's teachings are brilliant enough (and I read many of them prior to the internet, so looking up the controversy was basically impossible) that I already had confidence he had "it" in some sense. YMMV.

If you're highly realized you have siddhis. You don't even need to be realized to have siddhis.

The four means of converting beings to the Dharma are generosity (which itself as four aspects: giving material gifts, conferring fearlessness, loving kindness and teaching Dharma), pleasant speech, conduct and setting an example.

boda wrote:You are not following Mr. Dangerous. Alcoholism is not necessarily a moral issue. It is classified as a disease.

The question is not about morality but consensus. Is there a consensus among Buddhist practitioners that a realized person may be an alcoholic? I will venture to guess that there is not. How about you?

There is a consensus among Vajrayāna practitioners that mere appearances, alcoholism included, may not bear any relation to a person's actual realization. We don't really care what other Buddhists might think. Given that this is the case, there is really no common basis for a discussion.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Motova wrote:Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Motova wrote:Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.

CTR is not responsible for Thomas Rich's actions.

He is responsible for putting a severely deranged person in a seat of authority who was capable of many gross actions. If you don't have any ability to stop this, then you shouldn't be put on a throne and be called a guru. If he was supposedly enlightened enough to frak, drink alcohol, and snort coke without any attachment then you'd think he'd be able to appoint a virtuous regent. Number two is where it all comes down to; it's the highlight of his dharma career. If Thomas Rich was his best student, then that says a lot about CTR's abilities and teachings.

Last edited by Motova on Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The four means of converting beings to the Dharma are generosity (which itself as four aspects: giving material gifts, conferring fearlessness, loving kindness and teaching Dharma), pleasant speech, conduct and setting an example.

boda wrote:You are not following Mr. Dangerous. Alcoholism is not necessarily a moral issue. It is classified as a disease.

The question is not about morality but consensus. Is there a consensus among Buddhist practitioners that a realized person may be an alcoholic? I will venture to guess that there is not. How about you?

There is a consensus among Vajrayāna practitioners that mere appearances, alcoholism included, may not bear any relation to a person's actual realization. We don't really care what other Buddhists might think. Given that this is the case, there is really no common basis for a discussion.

The common basis is the need for meaning, and that's why any sort of consensus on what "the Buddhist Dharma produces," to use Karma Dorje's language, or standard of behavior, is quite unnecessary. A charismatic alcoholic who may drink themselves to death can be far better at supplying meaning than the most severe stoic.

Motova wrote:Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.

CTR is not responsible for Thomas Rich's actions.

Likewise, he's not responsible for any of the accomplishments of his students either. As I've mentioned earlier in the topic, those who are capable of helping themselves, help themselves.

Motova wrote:Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.

CTR is not responsible for Thomas Rich's actions.

He is responsible for putting a severely deranged person in a seat of authority who was capable of many gross actions. If you don't have any ability to stop this, then you shouldn't be put on a throne and be called a guru. If he was supposedly enlightened enough to frak, drink alcohol, and snort coke without any attachment then you'd think he'd be able to appoint a virtuous regent. Number two is where it all comes down to; it's the highlight of his dharma career. If Thomas Rich was his best student, then that says a lot about CTR's abilities and teachings.

Dylan, it is a long complex story. What matters is this:

According to Diana Mukpo, wife and widow of Trungpa, he ultimately became disillusioned with Tendzin as his heir, and during his final illness he called Tendzin "terrible" and "dreadful", and indicated that he would have gotten rid of Tendzin had he a suitable candidate with which to replace him.[24] Rick Fields, the editor of Vajradhatu's publication the Vajradhatu Sun, wrote that he resigned from his editorial position after Ösel Tendzin and the Board of Directors stopped him from publishing news of the events.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

boda wrote:Likewise, he's not responsible for any of the accomplishments of his students either.

Obviously you do not practice Vajrayana. In which tradition do you practice?

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde